ARGUMENT OP SIR WILLIAM EOBSON. 1883 



the seas, and territorial jurisdiction over particular waters 

 1139 meant that it could not go there with its fleets. And it was 

 rather pushing for a 3-mile limit in 1806 for the coasts. There 

 was nothing new in the willingness of Great Britain to accept pro- 

 visionally a 3-mile limit. It did not accept it in 1806. No agree- 

 ment was come to about it at all ; but Great Britain was never averse 

 to treat 3 miles as the limit, provided other nations would treat it as 

 the limit also. And therefore, when America put into her renuncia- 

 tion clause that the maritime belt was to be 3 miles, Great Britain 

 accepts. There is no discussion about it ; there is no insistence on it. 



THE PRESIDENT: On what question turned the discussion in 1806? 

 It turned not on the question of fisheries, but on the question 



SIR W. KOBSON : On the question of impressment. 



THE PRESIDENT: On the question of impressment; and at the time 

 it was to the interest of Great Britain to have the maritime belt 

 narrow ? 



SIR W. ROBSON: Yes. It is not unusual, and it would be idle to 

 attempt to conceal the fact that occasionally these great nations I 

 do not think Great Britain stands alone vary their arguments 

 according to their case ; and that they are sometimes putting forward 

 in one part of the world a demand which is quite inconsistent with 

 the demand they are making in another part of the world ; but still, 

 we must put up with these inconsistencies in Governments and in 

 statesmen. But on this particular occasion, Lord Bathurst had 

 already stated, and I have read that letter, and do not need to read 

 it again, in 1815, that Great Britain was not unwilling to take 3 

 miles for the maritime belt. She was willing to take it ; so that there 

 is no dispute about that. In that letter, which you may remember 

 I read, it was said that there must be reciprocity. She said : " We 

 are quite willing to fix on 1 league as the maritime belt from the 

 coast, provided America will do the same thing." And Lord 

 Bathurst called it the usual maritime jurisdiction; there is no doubt 

 about it; the usual maritime jurisdiction, usually applied, namely, 

 to the coast; but not so as to open up the bays. That was a totally 

 different matter. So that, really, when America put in the 3-mile 

 limit in our renunciation clause, she was only putting in what was 

 practically agreed not making any insistence, not getting any ad- 

 vantage. And when Messrs. Rush and Gallatin came to write home, 

 they made a lot of it. They say : " We have got up to the 3-mile 

 limit." As I say, it would be most ungracious to criticise censori- 

 ously their justification of their own diplomacy. But one must not 

 be misled by it. One must not carry their self-justification to the 

 absurd length of supposing that they really wanted to give up this 

 claim which haQ been the subject of so much negotiation and argu- 

 ment the claim to the bays and harbours of British North America. 



